*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[rocker59]

Still, in 1957, The updated K-model was renamed Sportster for a reason.

It was a pretty sporty bike in its day.  No pretensions needed. 

An XLCH was considered a hot bike from its intro in 1958, until the CB750 showed up a decade later...

[Kev m]

There are a lot of riders like me (most of the market) who don't want or need a wheelbase of less than 60" (judging from what bikes sell).

[rocker59]

What does the typical Guzzi 1100cc "lump" weigh and what does a typical Harley 1200 Sportster engine weigh? I guess that question should include the transmission as well but not the rest of the drivetrain. I'm just curious as to why neither marque has a reasonably light large displacement bike and I'm guessing that the frame constitutes quite a bit of the dry weight.

Buells weighed around 400lbs with thier Sportster-based engine.  They were pretty sporty, too...

 

[JohninVT`]

Still, in 1957, The updated K-model was renamed Sportster for a reason.

It was a pretty sporty bike in its day.  No pretensions needed. 

An XLCH was considered a hot bike from its intro in 1958, until the CB750 showed up a decade later...

I'm going to make Kev mad by saying this but the Sportster was fast....for a Harley.  It handled well...for a Harley.  Ride a well set up BSA A10 and then ride an early Sportster.  The Harley weighs 100lbs more and has 10 less horsepower.  The only thing it had going for it was the 57" wheelbase.  Early Sportsters were fast off the line compared to British bikes but they did not handle as well.      

A Sportster from the late 60's or early 70's still couldn't keep up with Brit iron on winding roads because a good Bonneville had almost 50 hp, weighed 425lbs full of fuel and still had a 55 inch wheelbase.

I'm not talking about highly strung racers, going fast on a banked oval or drag racing.  I'm just suggesting that the icons of "handling" in motorcycle history have usually been around 400lbs and had a 55 inch wheelbase.  Have a tour through Google and check it out.  Make a list of the best handling motorcycles you have ever heard of and then look up their spec's.  

By the way...an MGS-01 had a 56" wheelbase and weighed 423 lbs.          

[Pescara]

60 inches?

Imola 1972, 750 production race (i.e. street bikes), Ducati 1st and 2nd with ~ 60 inch wheelbases.   The Japanese, MV and the British couldn't keep up. That lasted through about 1978 and included winning Daytona.

The optimum wheelbase has varied depending on the ratio of power to chassis technology at a given time.  In 1972 they had more power than chassis, so 60 inches and a relatively good chassis worked better for going fast than anything shorter.  Since then its been getting shorter again.

The "icons" of street bike handling over time include the 1970s Ducati SS's, all of which had over 60 inch wheelbase.

[Greg Field]

That last is one part I don't understand.   What is driving "low seat heights", "short chassis", and "forward weight distribution"?     Those aren't necessarily good things, and aren't necessarily performance enhancers.   They're just styling issues ... hang onto ANY of your old clothes long enough, and they come back into style.   

Maybe "next day", those things will change ....  ???

Lannis

Well, it's a summary, as I said. You do not need all three on every bike. Sportbikes need short chassis and forward wieght distribution to have competitive handling. Other categories of bikes benefit from those two things, too. Short seat heights give a market advantage across the board and are expected on cruisers. These are not style issues. The first two are "make the bike work better" issues. The short seat heights is a "make the bike fit most riders" issue.

[Greg Field]

Since the 30's, every truly great handling, sporting mototcycle has been right around 400 lbs and had a 55 inch wheelbase.  Shorter than 55 inches is too twitchy and longer than 55 requires steeper steering geometry which is also too twitchy.  It doesn't matter if you're talking a BSA Goldstar, a Ducati 851 or a 2011 CBR1000RR, they all have  a wheelbase right around 55 inches and weigh close to 400lbs. 

To make a motorcycle turn fast, the weight needs to be pushed toward the front wheel.  It also helps if it's got a low polar moment.  The traditional Guzzi has neither.  The shaft drive also further screws up the weight bias.  Around town or on a commuter-tourer a 50/50 weight bias is great.  On a sportbike it's usually more like 60/40 front to rear.  Modern bikes have longer swingarms to help hook up.  If you put a long swingarm on a Guzzi you end up with a 60 inch wheelbase like the Griso, Norge and Breva's CARC.  You can build a 55 inch wheelbase with an L twin or a parallel twin or inline 4 or singles or V twins and still have a normal riding position that doesn't put your ass over the rear wheel.  That isn't as easy to do on a Guzzi twin because your knees hit the cylinders unless you're riding an MGS-01 with rearsets that are as cruel as a GSX-R.       

Some of the latter points concerning weight bias and long swingarms could be construed as "fashion" but the 400lb/55 inch wheelbase isn't.  I may be crazy but it's my "golden rule" for winnowing great handling bikes from good ones.

It's why Harley has never made a truly great handling bike with any sporting pretense and why British bikes wiped the floor with the world for decades before the Japanese and Italians figured it out.  Just my .02     

         

That's a very astute summation. Look at Buell. It's exactly his M.O. Same for Ducati and all the other successful makers, except Harley. Harley is able to buck the trend, for reasons that would take pages to give justice in describing.

[Pescara]

290 lbs, 52 inch wheelbase.  The icon of handling at the other end of the spectrum from the 1970's Ducati handling icon.  There are no rules, just changing circumstances.

[JohninVT`]

60 inches?

Imola 1972, 750 production race (i.e. street bikes), Ducati 1st and 2nd with ~ 60 inch wheelbases.   The Japanese, MV and the British couldn't keep up. That lasted through about 1978 and included winning Daytona.

The optimum wheelbase has varied depending on the ratio of power to chassis technology at a given time.  In 1972 they had more power than chassis, so 60 inches and a relatively good chassis worked better for going fast than anything shorter.  Since then its been getting shorter again.

The "icons" of street bike handling over time include the 1970s Ducati SS's, all of which had over 60 inch wheelbase.

A 70's Ducati SS is a very stable motorcycle.  Compared to a spindly framed Japanese bike of the day they were wonderful but I would still say a Bonneville or properly shimmed Commando handled better on a curvy road.  The racing Ducati's of the early 70's used a variation of a Seeley chassis and they didn't have 60" wheelbases.        

  

[JohninVT`]

290 lbs, 52 inch wheelbase.  The icon of handling at the other end of the spectrum from the 1970's Ducati handling icon.  There are no rules, just changing circumstances.

Did I stutter?  S_T_R_E_E_T_B_I_K_E .  The RGV is a piss poor streetbike for anyone not the size of a jockey and who might want to actually use the motorcycle for travel beyond a paddock.  I love TZR's and NSR's and RGV's but they're not real streetbikes.  They're narrowly focused, two stroke repli-racers with brutal ergos.

Bikes with 52 inch wheelbases require too much of the rider.  They're exhausting on bumpy roads.  They require reflexes that normal humans simply don't have.  That's why there aren't very many of them.  Every rule has exceptions.  That doesn't make the rule less valid.       

[Pescara]

It does kind of fit that a guy who rides a 1200 Breva would think that anything interesting and different is worse by definition.

The Ducati 750 GT was by far the best handling street bike of its time, and won Imola.  About 61 inch wheelbase.  Exceptions are the rule in this case, and there's always more than one way to solve a complex problem within the bounds of current technology.  These are motorcycles using an ever changing mix of technologies, not Greek temples.

In the 50s the optimum setup was the Manx Norton, and the street bikes that used its feather bed frame. That's when this particular theory started.  The story was that all bikes had to replicate the feather bed Nortons or they could not handle.  That meant 28 degrees rake was usually included too, as well as 400 lbs and 55 inch wheelbase.  In reality it was only a slice in time, just like the 750 GT.

[Big Block Jon]

Every rule has exceptions.  That doesn't make the rule less valid.

Not to be snarky, but I think it does.

The more exceptions, the less valid the rule.

[Kev m]

LOL john, not mad, sounds reasonable.

Sportys aren't fast,  they're just fast ENOUGH for me. ;)

As for weight, sure Buell showed it's not the lump alone. On Harleys it's the frame which is extra beefy for the rubbermounts. It's the overbuilt brackets at every turn. It's heavy cast wheels.  It's exhaust systems covered with chrome heat shields etc.

[Pescara]

A 70's Ducati SS is a very stable motorcycle.  Compared to a spindly framed Japanese bike of the day they were wonderful but I would still say a Bonneville or properly shimmed Commando handled better on a curvy road.  The racing Ducati's of the early 70's used a variation of a Seeley chassis and they didn't have 60" wheelbases.

I owned a Norton Commando for several years, have spent several full days riding a late-model ('78) Bonneville on twisty roads, and currently own a bevel 900SS (actually for the last 18 years).  Let me assure you that any comparison is totally ridiculous: you're comparing '70s race bike handling with '40s-level street bike handing.
 
Ducati hired Colin Seeley to build one chassis for a 500GP bike that used a unique prototype engine.   It was not a success.  However they used some of its features for their own chassis (chain adjusters for instance), which ALL had 60 inch wheelbases, including the race bikes.

[JohninVT`]

It does kind of fit that a guy who rides a 1200 Breva would think that anything interesting and different is worse by definition.

The Ducati 750 GT was by far the best handling street bike of its time, and won Imola.  About 61 inch wheelbase.  Exceptions are the rule, and there's more than one way to solve a complex problem within the bounds of current technology.  These are motorcycles using an ever changing mix of technology, not Greek temples.

In the 50s the optimum setup was the Manx Norton (and the street bikes that used its feather bed frame), and that's when this particular theory started.  The story was that all bikes had to replicate the feather bed Nortons or they could not handle.  28 degrees rake was often included too, as well as 400 lbs and 55 inch wheelbase.  

I have no idea what my Breva has to do with this but it's just one of 30 or so motorcycles I've owned.  The RGV250 makes a great streetbike for self important dwarfs with short attention spans.          

A Ducati GT750 is a fricken pig that won't turn.  They weighed 500lbs and were too long.  It was the best handling bike in the minds of obtuse snobs but not those who had open minds and were willing to consider that the universe isn't centered around Italy.  Yeah, my 1200 Sport DOES handle better than a GT but that's mostly down to better suspension components because it is also 500lbs and too damned long.  Even Ducati realized in the early 80's that the 55 inch wheelbase made the bikes handle better.  An 851 handles superbly.  For 30 years Ducati's have handled better than other bikes because they have 55 inch wheelbases and weigh 400lbs.      

Yes, the technology changes but people do not.  They are still 170lbs and 5' 10" tall and they still don't fit on 230lb, 52" wheelbase motorcycles.  They never will.  Bikes that are designed without regard to people are just "fashion" or fads.  This is an extrapolation of what I thought Greg was going to discuss when he mentioned the flawed ergos caused by the Guzzi V-Twin but I've obviously gone off on a tangent.  

The Ducati 1198, the most technologically advanced machine they've ever sold has a 56 inch wheelbase and weighs around 400lbs.  There may be short lived fads that tweak frame geometry but since Turner's Speed Twin, everyone keeps comeing back to the same wheelbase and weight.  It has everything to do with the rider and only a very small amount with the bike itself.              

[Pescara]

A Ducati GT750 is a fricken pig that won't turn.  They weighed 500lbs and were too long.

How many miles do you have on one? How many of those on twisty roads? And what handled better in the period 1970-74?  They weight 440 lbs, BTW.

I owned an 888 SP2 for a period, it was much heavier and it really was a bit of a pig.  A scary fast pig if you rode it to its limits, but a pig none the less.

[JohninVT`]

A 70's Ducati SS is a very stable motorcycle.  Compared to a spindly framed Japanese bike of the day they were wonderful but I would still say a Bonneville or properly shimmed Commando handled better on a curvy road.  The racing Ducati's of the early 70's used a variation of a Seeley chassis and they didn't have 60" wheelbases.

I owned a Norton Commando for several years, have spent several full days riding a late-model ('78) Bonneville on twisty roads, and currently own a bevel 900SS (actually for the last 18 years).  Let me assure you that any comparison is totally ridiculous: you're comparing '70s race bike handling with '40s-level street bike handing.
 
Ducati hired Colin Seeley to build one chassis for a 500GP bike that used a unique prototype engine.   They used some of its features for their own chassis (chain adjusters for instance), but they ALL had 60 inch wheelbases, including the race bikes.  

I owned a Commando Interstate for ten years.  I have owned a BSA Super Rocket for 20 years and my father owned it for 20 years before that.  I've owned at least 5 Bonneville's.  I doubt you could assure me of anything other than your snobbery.  

The Brit stuff weighed a hundred pounds less and handled better on rough, curvy roads.  It may be that you live where the roads are smooth and the curves are sweeping.  Why you would say the Ducati had 70's racebike handling and the Brits were 40's streetbike handling when they used similar components and the main difference was frame geometry is a little baffling.  

Chain adjusters?  Really?  That's all they used from the Seeley frame?   ::)  Whatever, man.  I'm all set with you tonight.  You're like a 12 year old.    

[Pescara]

A 70's Ducati SS is a very stable motorcycle.  Compared to a spindly framed Japanese bike of the day they were wonderful but I would still say a Bonneville or properly shimmed Commando handled better on a curvy road.  The racing Ducati's of the early 70's used a variation of a Seeley chassis and they didn't have 60" wheelbases.

I owned a Norton Commando for several years, have spent several full days riding a late-model ('78) Bonneville on twisty roads, and currently own a bevel 900SS (actually for the last 18 years).  Let me assure you that any comparison is totally ridiculous: you're comparing '70s race bike handling with '40s-level street bike handing.
 
Ducati hired Colin Seeley to build one chassis for a 500GP bike that used a unique prototype engine.   They used some of its features for their own chassis (chain adjusters for instance), but they ALL had 60 inch wheelbases, including the race bikes.  

I owned a Commando Interstate for ten years.  I have owned a BSA Super Rocket for 20 years and my father owned it for 20 years before that.  I've owned at least 5 Bonneville's.  I doubt you could assure me of anything other than your snobbery.  

The Brit stuff weighed a hundred pounds less and handled better on rough, curvy roads.  It may be that you live where the roads are smooth and the curves are sweeping.  Why you would say the Ducati had 70's racebike handling and the Brits were 40's streetbike handling when they used similar components and the main difference was frame geometry is a little baffling.  

Chain adjusters?  Really?  That's all they used from the Seeley frame?   ::)  Whatever, man.  I'm all set with you tonight.  You're like a 12 year old.    

That's nice  :D :D :D

Either an SS or GT Ducati weighs about 440 lbs, about 45 lbs more than a Bonneville.  Have you ever ridden a GT on a twisty road, and compared with the British stuff?

The poor Commando was saddled with the worst frame the British ever tried to sell as a performance bike.  It was out of its depth in fast riding, but OK for a touring bike.

Here's a photo and link on the Seeley-framed Ducati GP bike.  I found one other chassis feature used by subsequent Ducatis other than the chain adjuster design - they also used the frame lug design for the front engine mount.  

http://www.paralleltwins.com/rubrique,-,546969,3.html

[AJ Huff]

I enjoyed your insight above Greg F. You too John in VT.

...

-AJ

[kevdog3019]

About 385 lbs and a longish wheelbase (not sure?).  I will have to measure and am now curious.  Phenomenal handling and all the weight is down low.  Most folks that had them compared it to their Jap sport bike that came later and said it was at least as good handling... maybe even better.  If Guzzi would only do it again.  I've got some sporting Guzzi's, but this one takes the cake.
-Kevin

[Joliet Jim]

so has this been 1 page on liquid cooled motor and 7 pages of who knows more about handling motorcycles.  if that's the case my votes with the brit bikes not ugly italian junk from the 70s.  There that should be good for 7 more pages.   ::)

[steffen]

Hi Greg.
Good to have you back on WG.
I do really appreciate your point of view and agree that Guzzi need something new to pay the bills (a diesel, electric, I dunno...)

Now, would you please care to clarify some things for me, that I don't quite get:

How come that guzzi is a failure compared to other iconic aircooled engines: The Harley, BMW boxer and Ducati L-twin (you can even throw the Triumph twin in, if you like).

You once stated, that Piaggio needs to learn the motorcycle business. What do the other brands do right, that Piaggio doesn't?

I think that the Guzzis are getting there in terms of performance. Now they just need to shed 100 lbs  ;D

/Steffen, Denmark

Thanks. It's enjoyable to check in once in a while.

Why is Guzzi a failure compared to those other twins? It's a huge subject that would take many pages to do minimal justice, but here's a distillation to 200 proof in one paragraph:

The Guzzi transverse-V twin isn't, or wasn't, anyway, a failure. As an engine, it was simple, robust, reliable, durable, and easy to maintain. It cooled extremely well. It had great torque and decent horsepower. And it had character. Unfortunately, though, its architecture greatly compromised proper design of the rest of the motorcycle because the jugs were in the way of designing the rest of the bike for optimal rider comfort and weight distribution. The jugs are not in the way on the Harley, Ducati, and Triumph, and other engines. It is less true for the BMW engine. I know this reason doesn't resonate here and it would take many pages and diagrams to adequately explain it. If you want to understand it, put your own body on your Guzzi and picture moving yourself forward or lowering the seat height, and you might get a better idea of what a challenge it becomes and why the Guzzi engine has become a handicap in this day of low seat heights, short chassis, and forward weight distribution. Water-cooling the transverse-V engine will only make this trait worse. It's why I believe it folly to think such an engine will reverse Guzzi's fortunes. It's just my opinion, though.

The motorcycle business. Another huge subject. I'll try to get to this and the rest later.

Thanks, Greg. I'm getting a little wiser on the subject. Looking forward to a distillation about the motorcykelindustry  ;-T

But let me add this: My friends are mocking me for my love of guzzis - good natured (I mock them as well). Just today one of them, a guy who rides a BMW K1200RS (aka the comfy chair  ;D ) wrote about the first time, he tried my V11 sport (my translation, he wrote in danish of course):
"The smile was for real, just like when I hook a salmon. And I was deliberately falling behind, just to get hard on the gas again. The sound and the vibrations were fantastic. And it's surprisingly easy to handle, it'll just do, what you ask it to..."
And no, he won't buy any Guzzi  ;D ;D ;D

[IceBlue]

This attitude is seem occasionally.
3 or four of my colleagues ride or has ridden bikes, from Aprilia, Ducati, HD to BMW. My BMW colleague was giving me a friendly scorn asking if I were packing enough tools to ride my goose around for more than 25km. He's 56 and packs around 160hp on his BMW 1000RR - good for him, my Lario 60hp will do, but I'll bet my hiney that he would love the Griso or the Daytona 1000 if he would ever consider riding one.

What seem a common denominator is, that they have never ever ridden a goose, they have an opinion based on hearsay.

Steffen
WHY wouldn't your friend consider a goose - embarrassment ???
He liked the ride....

Ciao

[steffen]

This attitude is seem occasionally.
3 or four of my colleagues ride or has ridden bikes, from Aprilia, Ducati, HD to BMW. My BMW colleague was giving me a friendly scorn asking if I were packing enough tools to ride my goose around for more than 25km. He's 56 and packs around 160hp on his BMW 1000RR - good for him, my Lario 60hp will do, but I'll bet my hiney that he would love the Griso or the Daytona 1000 if he would ever consider riding one.

What seem a common denominator is, that they have never ever ridden a goose, they have an opinion based on hearsay.

Steffen
WHY wouldn't your friend consider a goose - embarrassment ???
He liked the ride....

Ciao

Hmm, I don't know why, my Guzzi can't win my friends hearts. I think most of them agree, that my bike is pretty gorgeous. Most that takes mine for a ride, likes it.
One of them says, that if his bike was only meant to be parked, he'd own a Guzzi. Dunno why, mine has only let me down with the cracked header...
But the lack of abs puts some of them off (and frankly, me too).
Some might worry about service, there isn't many places in Denmark.
And all agree, that Guzzis are way too expensive (and I agree).

[kevdog3019]

Funny they didn't say anything about this old lump of a motor sucks to much for them to like it!  Ok... I wanted to get back on topic.  It seems possible (as I stated several times before in this post) that people won't purchase because of Guzzi's business model (or lack thereof).  I haven't heard a first ride report that stated these engines just don't cut it.  I continue on my rant about the lack of dealerships, parts, advertising, and all the other BS that needs fixing well before this engine.  Again...  if people don't know about this engine...  :P
-Kevin 

[blackcat]

They should just put this prototype from 1950 into production:





That flywheel might not pass but that is a minor detail...... 8)

[rocker59]

Funny they didn't say anything about this old lump of a motor sucks to much for them to like it!  Ok... I wanted to get back on topic.  It seems possible (as I stated several times before in this post) that people won't purchase because of Guzzi's business model (or lack thereof).  I haven't heard a first ride report that stated these engines just don't cut it.  I continue on my rant about the lack of dealerships, parts, advertising, and all the other BS that needs fixing well before this engine.  Again...  if people don't know about this engine...  :P
-Kevin 

Agreed.  Guzzi has little, or no name recognition in the USA.

The first question people ask me is, "where's the nearest dealer?"  They do not like my answer.

Most people want to ride something they've heard of, and something they can have the dealer maintain.

In a few metro areas around the USA, people are lucky enough to have great dealers.  In most places we don't.  That means most motorcycle "owners" will not be interested in the brand.  Most people are "safe", they don't take "risks", even people engaging in "risky motorcycling". 

Many people's purchases are tied up in thier egos.  Buying something thier friends have never heard of is not appealing.  Having to explain thier purchase is uncomfortable.  Most people want to have praise and admiration heaped upon them when people look at thier bike.  "What is it", "why'd you buy THAT?", and "Why didn't you buy _____?" are not something most people want to deal with...

The driveline layout is not something anyone has ever really asked me about.  Well, a few motorcyclists have.  The open driveshaft on my Sport 1100 seems real interesting to sportsbike riders for some reason...  I don't think I've ever heard anything negative directed at the sideways-Vee...

Guzzi needs (good) dealers and name recognition among the current motorcycle buying pool. 

[rocker59]

They should just put this prototype from 1950 into production:





That flywheel might not pass but that is a minor detail...... 8)

Dang!  Guzzi has a lot of things on which to draw inspiration.  If I was in charge, and wanting something new, I'd send the engineers to the museum for an afternoon.  That's pretty cool!

[rocker59]

Just sitting here thinking about this thread...

Seems my favorite bikes have all had:

a 58-inch wheelbase.
a 26-degree steering head.
weighed 450-500 lbs.
and, had 75-90 rwhp twins or triples.

[Amboman]

They should just put this prototype from 1950 into production:





That flywheel might not pass but that is a minor detail...... 8)

That engine has attachment points and gear drive for a supercharger too!